Kingsfield
Two products How it works PII Tokenizer Writing
Connect the Judge
Home › Research › Antitrust & Competition › Exclusive dealing under Clayton Section 3
Kingsfield · Research · Antitrust & Competition

What statute restricts exclusive dealing and tying arrangements in the sale of goods?

Published 2026-06-23 · U.S. federal law

Clayton Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14, restricts exclusive-dealing and tying arrangements in the sale of goods where the effect may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.

The answer

The conditional-sale prohibition

15 U.S.C. § 14 makes it unlawful to lease or sell goods, or fix a price, on the condition that the lessee or purchaser not use or deal in the goods of a competitor, where the effect of that condition may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. The provision applies to commodities and reaches both exclusive-dealing and tying conditions.

An incipiency standard

Section 3 reaches arrangements before they ripen into a full Sherman Act violation. The statute asks whether the effect of the condition may be to substantially lessen competition, which is a forward-looking, incipiency test rather than proof of completed harm.

The judged input

What the AI drafted

Submitted to the judge

This is an excerpt from a draft antitrust-risk memo — the kind of work product a lawyer generates with a legal-AI drafting tool, then has to stand behind. Kingsfield does not write it; it rules on the citations the model put in it. This draft cites two authorities; one of them is wrong.

AI draft excerpt — antitrust-risk memo
The Company's proposed distribution agreements would require dealers to stock its products exclusively and refrain from carrying competing lines. Under 15 U.S.C. § 14, it is unlawful to sell goods on the condition that the buyer not deal in a competitor's goods where the effect may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. We note that the prohibition on this kind of exclusive-dealing condition in the sale of goods is set out in 15 U.S.C. § 2. We advise the Company to revise the agreements to avoid foreclosing a substantial share of the relevant market.

The judge ruled on every citation as the draft used it — it accepted 15 U.S.C. § 14 and rejected 15 U.S.C. § 2. Here is why.

The verdict

How Kingsfield ruled

Ruled 2026-06-23

Each citation in the draft above was submitted to the Kingsfield judge and ruled against the primary-law corpus — Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation. These are live verdicts, not editorial. Each card shows the claim the draft made and the verbatim authority the verdict was rendered against.

Accept15 U.S.C. § 14

The draft claimed: It is unlawful to lease or sell goods on the condition that the purchaser not use or deal in the goods of a competitor where the effect may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.

“§ 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within ”

Cite found; proposition supported by the cited text.

Reject15 U.S.C. § 2

The draft claimed: Section 2 is the provision that prohibits conditioning the sale of goods on the buyer not dealing in a competitor's goods where the effect may be to substantially lessen competition.

Cite found, but the cited text does not support the claim. 15 U.S.C. 2 prohibits monopolization, attempt, and conspiracy to monopolize; the exclusive-dealing and tying prohibition on conditional sales of goods is Clayton Section 3 at 15 U.S.C. 14. Regenerate with the correct authority.

Run your own work through the judge

Kingsfield rules on every citation, quote, and proposition your AI produces, against the primary law we cover. Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation, with a signed Audit Capsule.

Connect the Judge See the architecture

This page is legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The draft shown is an illustration of a typical AI answer; verdicts reflect the cited authority in the Kingsfield corpus as of the ruling date shown above.

Kingsfield

The judge for legal AI.
A WalkerNash Development LLC product.

© 2026 WalkerNash Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Built in the United States. No third-party trackers.
Product
  • Two products
  • How it works
  • Audit Capsule
  • Practice areas
  • Cloud Judge · MCP
  • PII Tokenizer
For Firms
  • Pricing
  • Privilege
  • DPA
  • Trust posture
  • Research
  • Verified attorneys
  • Status
Company
  • About WalkerNash
  • Crucible (compliance)
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Press
v0.9.4 · 2026.05.26kingsfield.ai